Share this story

On a quarterly financial call Wednesday afternoon, Tesla CEO Elon Musk briefly spoke about a new lawsuit filed by Nikola Motor Company, a Salt Lake City-based hydrogen fuel cell truck startup. Musk said it was a "laughable lawsuit from some company called 'Nikola.'"

Whatever the merits of the lawsuit itself, large shipping companies like US Xpress and Ryder think Nikola Motor Company is more than just "some company." Now, it seems, Anheuser-Busch, one of the largest beer producers in the US and a subsidiary of multinational conglomerate AB InBev, is getting on the Nikola truck train, too. On Thursday, Anheuser-Busch announced that it would buy a sizable 800 hydrogen fuel cell trucks from Nikola Motor company to be delivered between 2020 and 2025.

Like Tesla, Nikola has yet to deliver a zero-tailpipe-emissions truck to a customer. Unlike Tesla, the company has not yet delivered any kind of mass-produced vehicle to a customer at all.

Still, Nikola is confident enough in the demand for its trucks that it's currently building a $1 billion manufacturing plant in Arizona outside of Phoenix and plans to move company headquarters to Phoenix later this year.

The Anheuser-Busch deal seems a bit more serious than a reservation with no money down, although the details of the agreement were not made public. According to Nikola spokesperson Colleen Robar, Nikola will build 28 fueling stations along Anheuser-Busch's busiest routes as part of the terms of the agreement. Robar declined to specify what those routes were. Anheuser-Busch's media contact did not respond to a request for comment.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Anheuser-Busch has also put money down for 40 Tesla electric Semis as part of its goal to convert its entire long-haul fleet to renewable energy sources by 2025.

Skepticism of Nikola Motor Company is not completely unwarranted. It has only just begun construction of two hydrogen fueling stations, and other companies like Toyota have been banking on the success of fuel cell vehicles for a long time without really being able to create a substantial market. Hydrogen is expensive to transport, so refueling stations can't exactly copy gas station business models with deliveries of hydrogen at regular intervals.

Instead, Nikola is hoping to make its own hydrogen at its refueling stations with the help of a Norwegian firm called Nel Hydrogen. Nel is providing the machinery for the refueling stations, which any hydrogen-based vehicles will be able to use. For Nikola trucks, fuel will be bundled into the price of the truck.

Nikola said that the Nel Hydrogen system will electrolyze water to make hydrogen, rather than use natural gas reformation, for example. Robar told Ars via email that there would be "no concerns about other special elements that could add cost or sourcing issues... Only PEM (proton exchange membrane) fuel cells and electricity."

According to the company, it takes 55kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen, and each truck "is anticipated to consume around 50-75kgs per day." That suggests that at the high end, it would require a little over 4MWh of renewable energy to refuel a Nikola truck. The good thing is, once it's made, hydrogen fuel can be stored.

Logistical hurdles aside, if Nikola succeeds it would be another step forward in reducing greenhouse gases from one of the most polluting yet important sectors of the American economy. "Once fully implemented, the carbon reductions gained from these 800 trucks will reduce the brewer’s carbon emissions from logistics by more than 18 percent—equivalent to taking more than 13 thousand passenger vehicles off the road annually," Anheuser-Busch wrote in its press release.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming (i.e. converting natural gas directly to hydrogen). They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).

Still I will believe it when I see it. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient. 55 kWh is just the energy required to break the water bond. You then need to spend more energy cooling and compressing the hydrogen.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming. They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming. They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).

So it's basically the same deal as any electric car.

Yes except using about 3x as much electricity per mile.

A car powered by electricity is 200 Wh/mi to 400 Wh/mi. A car powered by electricity produced from hydrogen produced from electricity is 600 Wh/mi to 1200 Wh/mi.

It is a low efficiency round trip of dubious merit. Let's make an electric car but instead of putting electricity in the car we will use the electricity to make hydrogen and then the hydrogen to make electricity and now 3x as much electricity to go the same distance.

According to the company, it takes 55kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen, and each truck "is anticipated to consume around 50-75kgs per day." That suggests that at the high end, it would require a little over 4MWh of renewable energy to refuel a Nikola truck. The good thing is, once it's made, hydrogen fuel can be stored.

55kWh * 75 kg = 4125 kWh to refuel a single truck? The same amount of energy can recharge a Tesla Semi at least 5 times.

All Tesla has to do is introduce battery swapping for their Semi's-- they'll make recharge time a non-issue.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming. They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).

So it's basically the same deal as any electric car.

Except for the round trip efficiency through electrolysis and fuel cell being massively less efficient than a battery.

According to the company, it takes 55kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen, and each truck "is anticipated to consume around 50-75kgs per day." That suggests that at the high end, it would require a little over 4MWh of renewable energy to refuel a Nikola truck. The good thing is, once it's made, hydrogen fuel can be stored.

55kWh * 75 kg = 4125 kWh to refuel a single truck? The same amount of energy can recharge a Tesla Semi at least 5 times.

It has about double the range of a Tesla but yeah hydrogen is shit efficiency. It is going to take 3x the energy per mile.

A HFCV is an electric vehicle it just happens to be a very expensive low efficiency one. Now I will say a hydrogen semi truck makes slightly more sense than Toyotas boondoggle of trying to make hydrogen passenger vehicles.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

Hydrogen is often a byproduct of dealing with petroleum and even though companies are trying to give it better uses nowadays it's so much of a surplus that it ends up being burned in flares. So, yeah, if they can use that hydrogen from petroleum and natural gas processing then they should if it's viable financially speaking.

I think the question is how much energy you can store per volume unit. Batteries aren't that dense yet. Maybe there will be a point where they will be better than most fuels out there (graphene? dense Li batteries with periodic treatment to contain spikes?) but meanwhile hydrogen could be the next big development.

How extensive is the hydrogen fuel fill-up station network around the country? If I was someone in logistics, I'd be a bit nervous about adding in another variable to getting your product around the country. You know, finding out that a non-insignificant number of your current long-haul routes can't be done without running out of fuel AFTER you've bought a bunch of those trucks. Not that this isn't something to consider with all electric trucks either, but Tesla is pretty dedicated to fully building out their supercharger network.

I think the question is how much energy you can store per volume unit. Batteries aren't that dense yet. Maybe there will be a point where they will be better than most fuels out there (graphene? dense Li batteries with periodic treatment to contain spikes?) but meanwhile hydrogen could be the next big development.

Hydrogen isn't very dense either. I think you mean the specific energy which is the energy per unit of mass. There hydrogen (the raw gas) is better than batteries but the hydrogen, the tanks to hold it, the hydrogen pump, and the fuel cell, plus the battery you need to buffer the output of the fuel cell and the fact that you need about 2.5x as much hydrogen to begin with because the fuel cell is only 40% efficient isn't that much better.

If you look solely at the specific energy (Wh/kg) of hydrogen gas it looks pretty impressive. When looking at that apples to apples of the entire energy storage and delivery system it is a lot less impressive.

According to the company, it takes 55kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen, and each truck "is anticipated to consume around 50-75kgs per day." That suggests that at the high end, it would require a little over 4MWh of renewable energy to refuel a Nikola truck. The good thing is, once it's made, hydrogen fuel can be stored.

55kWh * 75 kg = 4125 kWh to refuel a single truck? The same amount of energy can recharge a Tesla Semi at least 5 times.

All Tesla has to do is introduce battery swapping for their Semi's-- they'll make recharge time a non-issue.

Semis. Unless you're talking about something that belongs to a semi. And as for recharge time, the Tesla trucks IIRC will go 500 miles on a charge, and can be charged to ~400 mile range in 30 minutes or so. So basically drive, stop for a meal somewhere, charge truck, drive again, and about the time the battery is depleted again you'd be at your max hours for the day, park, sleep, charge truck overnight, and you're ready to go again in the morning. Unless you're co driving or other type of fleet where the truck gets used continuously, swapping out the battery would not really be needed.

I think the question is how much energy you can store per volume unit. Batteries aren't that dense yet. Maybe there will be a point where they will be better than most fuels out there (graphene? dense Li batteries with periodic treatment to contain spikes?) but meanwhile hydrogen could be the next big development.

Hydrogen isn't very dense either. Especially when you take the size of the hydrogen, the tanks to hold it, the hydrogen pump, and the fuel cell, plus the battery you need to buffer the output of the fuel cell and the fact that you need about 2.5x as much hydrogen because the fuel cell is only 40% efficient.

When looking at that apples to apples the impressive specific energy of hydrogen is a lot less impressive.

Once fully implemented, the carbon reductions gained from these 800 trucks will reduce the brewer’s carbon emissions from logistics by more than 18 percent

If these 800 trucks went to 0 total carbon, and it reduced the fleet's carbon by more than 18%, that would imply a fleet of 800/.18 = 4,444 trucks. Assuming it will be more than 0 carbon (fuel burned in the truck is only part of the carbon footprint of logistics), that would imply a smaller fleet than that. If it drops their carbon output to a more-likely 50% of an ICE truck, that would be only 2,200 trucks in their entire fleet. I think there are more than that in my neighborhood.

I call bullshit on 18% reduction.

A fleet of over 4000 semi-trucks would be one of the largest in the nation. Honestly, I'm amazed their truck fleet is that large. And if you have even 10 fifty-three foot trailers in your neighborhood, you live in a ghetto bro, much less 2200.

According to the company, it takes 55kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen, and each truck "is anticipated to consume around 50-75kgs per day." That suggests that at the high end, it would require a little over 4MWh of renewable energy to refuel a Nikola truck. The good thing is, once it's made, hydrogen fuel can be stored.

55kWh * 75 kg = 4125 kWh to refuel a single truck? The same amount of energy can recharge a Tesla Semi at least 5 times.

It has about double the range of a Tesla but yeah hydrogen is shit efficiency. It is going to take 3x the energy per mile.

A HFCV is an electric vehicle it just happens to be a very expensive low efficiency one. Now I will say a hydrogen semi truck makes slightly more sense than Toyotas boondoggle of trying to make hydrogen passenger vehicles.

Range is a big deal when recharging infrastructure isn't as widespread as it could be.

I think the question is how much energy you can store per volume unit. Batteries aren't that dense yet. Maybe there will be a point where they will be better than most fuels out there (graphene? dense Li batteries with periodic treatment to contain spikes?) but meanwhile hydrogen could be the next big development.

Hydrogen isn't very dense either. Especially when you take the size of the hydrogen, the tanks to hold it, the hydrogen pump, and the fuel cell, plus the battery you need to buffer the output of the fuel cell and the fact that you need about 2.5x as much hydrogen because the fuel cell is only 40% efficient.

When looking at that apples to apples the impressive specific energy of hydrogen is a lot less impressive.

It's still impressive and it can still be an option depending on several factors. I think for long ranges where you can't wait several hours for your battery to recharge it can be very competitive. There's also weight and space such system would require, maybe part of that added energy could be offset by less weight? I'm speculating because I'm not sure what would be the size and weight of a hydrogen system with the same range as some battery based system. Dismissing it without considering all the variables doesn't seem wise to me.

I think the question is how much energy you can store per volume unit. Batteries aren't that dense yet. Maybe there will be a point where they will be better than most fuels out there (graphene? dense Li batteries with periodic treatment to contain spikes?) but meanwhile hydrogen could be the next big development.

Hydrogen isn't very dense either. Especially when you take the size of the hydrogen, the tanks to hold it, the hydrogen pump, and the fuel cell, plus the battery you need to buffer the output of the fuel cell and the fact that you need about 2.5x as much hydrogen because the fuel cell is only 40% efficient.

When looking at that apples to apples the impressive specific energy of hydrogen is a lot less impressive.

It's still impressive and it can still be an option depending on several factors. I think for long ranges where you can't wait several hours for your battery to recharge it can be very competitive. There's also weight and space such system would require, maybe part of that added energy could be offset by less weight? I'm speculating because I'm not sure what would be the size and weight of a hydrogen system with the same range as some battery based system. Dismissing it without considering all the variables doesn't seem wise to me.

I dismiss hydrogen because it is an utterly insane safety risk. Regular automotive crashes are dangerous enough when we're talking about just gasoline. Hydrogen has 3 times the specific energy/kg of gasoline.

Combine a large crushed hydrogen tank with an ignition source and you can level half a block with the ensuing fuel-air bomb. Batteries and diesel and even gasoline are far, FAR safer in a crash.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

Hydrogen is often a byproduct of dealing with petroleum and even though companies are trying to give it better uses nowadays it's so much of a surplus that it ends up being burned in flares. So, yeah, if they can use that hydrogen from petroleum and natural gas processing then they should if it's viable financially speaking.

It's that big of a byproduct of normal processing? Interesting. If it's not too much expense to capture that, would make sense to start using that. However the goal is to drastically reduce/stop using petroleum and natural gas eventually, so should start building out more renewables and trying to improve electrolysis. Wish it was more efficient though... Maybe someday we'll capture a comet and use orbital solar which is plentiful and 24/7 to crack and send down hydrogen? Probably not worth the $$$ to drop it down into the gravity well though, sadly.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming. They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).

So it's basically the same deal as any electric car.

Yes except using about 3x as much electricity per mile.

A car powered by electricity is 200 Wh/mi to 400 Wh/mi. A car powered by electricity produced from hydrogen produced from electricity is 600 Wh/mi to 1200 Wh/mi.

It is a low efficiency round trip of dubious merit. Let's make an electric car but instead of putting electricity in the car we will use the electricity to make hydrogen and then the hydrogen to make electricity and now 3x as much electricity to go the same distance.

Yes, but...

The one thing hydrogen addresses that electric (battery) doesn't is refueling time. No trucker wants to wait 2 hours or more for his (her) truck to be refueled. After a quick meal & bathroom break, it's time to get back on the road.

The Tesla truck won't do that. This would. Yes, it's less efficient. It's also MORE efficient when taking the driver's time into account.

As mentioned multiple times in various threads, the Tesla Semi will get about 500 miles of range on a fully-charged battery, and the battery can be charged with 400 miles of range in 30 minutes.

900 miles at 65 mph is 13 hours of driving; at 55 mph it's 16.5 hours; at 50 mph it's 18 hours. You're not doing any more driving than that in a day. A 30 minute meal break every 6-8 hours isn't unheard of.

Unless you have multiple drivers takings turns behind the wheel, range and recharge times won't be an issue with the Tesla Semi.

Good to hear at least they plan on NOT grabbing the hydrogen from fossil fuels, although they're going to have to build quite a lot of solar/wind renewables and a pretty large storage tank at each location.

To be clear they never excluded the use of fossil fuels. They just won't be using steam reforming. They will make hydrogen by electrolysis. If you connect an electrolysis plant to the grid you can produce hydrogen using grid power (which is a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables).